HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.intyb/apvvcr0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DePaul University College of Law
International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI)
March 30 2009
Apitz v. Venezuela Case: The Ramifications of the Sentence in International Law
Part I. Background
Thirty years have passed since the American Convention on Human Rights went into
effect. More than two decades have also passed since the renowned sentences of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Cases against Honduras were handed
down. In the interim a few very particular situations have arisen in which some States -
very few - have manifested their intention not to comply with the resolutions of this
high tribunal. (Trinidad and Tobago and Peru). In these cases, the Inter-American
Court has made clear resolutions about its jurisdiction and the obligation of compliance
with its decisions. Peru, which withdrew its acceptance of the competence of the court
during the government of Alberto Fujimori, not only re-accepted it after its return to
democracy, but also adopted clear judicial dispositions regarding the obligatory nature of
the sentences of that tribunal starting with the sentence in the Barrios Altos case.
In Apitz and other recent cases, the Inter-American Court condemned the State of
Venezuela for the violation of various rights contained in the Inter-American
Convention. The same decision ruled out the violation of other rights contained in the
initial suit. That sentence has generated a reaction on the part of judicial authorities in
that country that could have counterproductive effects if the Executive Power takes the
position of the Constitutional Court that declared it un-executable, as well as
recommending that the Executive denounce the Inter-American Convention on Human
Rights, a decision that is political and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive,
not the Judicial Power.
The Inter-American Court decided Apitz Barbera et al v. Venezuela on August 5, 2008.
The facts of the case are related to
the removal from office of former judges of the Corte Primera de lo
Contencioso Administrativo [First Court of Administrative Disputes]
(hereinafter the First Court) Ana Maria Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha
Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera on October 30, 2003, on the
grounds that they had committed an inexcusable judicial error when they
granted an amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights]
against an administrative act that had denied a request for protocolization
of a land sale. The Commission asserted that the removal based on this
error is contrary to the principle of judicial independence and
undermines the right of judges to decide freely in accordance with the
law and that they were removed on the grounds that they had
committed an alleged inexcusable judicial error when what existed was a
reasonable and reasoned difference of possible legal interpretations
concerning a particular procedural feature. This was a serious violation
of their right to due process because of the lack of justification of the
decision to remove them and their lack of access to any simple, swift, and
effective recourse for obtaining a determination on the disciplinary](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.intyb/apvvcr0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)